The role of undergraduate teaching, learning and a national prescribing safety assessment in preparation for practical prescribing: UK medical students' perspective.

AIMS: To investigate medical students' perspectives on the influence of their undergraduate course and the UK prescribing safety assessment (PSA) on the acquisition of practical prescribing skills. METHODS: An online questionnaire comprising multiple choice and open-ended questions was available to UK medical students in years 3, 4 and 5. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were completed. RESULTS: In total, 1023 medical students from 25 UK medical schools responded: 22% (3rd year), 37% (4th year) and 41% (final year). A minority of medical students believed that their medical course prepared them sufficiently for practical prescribing (36.4%, n = 372, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 32-41%), 52.6%, of students thought that practical prescribing should be introduced into the curriculum earlier (n = 538, CI = 48-57%), and 73.7% reported that a more consistent approach to the teaching and learning of practical prescribing might be beneficial (n = 754, CI = 71-77%). An awareness of the national PSA was high (86.5%, n = 885), particularly amongst final year students (98.3%, n = 413, CI = 97-100%); 67.4% of all students (n = 690, CI = 64-71%) and 72.1% (n = 303) of final year students perceived that the PSA will improve or had improved their practical prescribing skills. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of medical students perceive that their undergraduate course does not adequately prepare them for practical prescribing. Many believe that there is some merit in introducing practical prescribing teaching earlier in the curriculum and medical schools adopting a more consistent approach. Among medical students, the PSA is thought to have a positive influence on prescribing skills learning. These data might be useful in developing a programme of study dedicated to practical prescribing.

Safe prescribing training provision for junior doctors: is this optimal?

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the training provisions in practical safe prescribing for foundation doctors in NHS hospitals located in the South Thames region. METHODS: A web-based questionnaire was distributed by e-mail to all 1762 foundation doctors in the South Thames Foundation School (STFS) region. In addition, a separate questionnaire was distributed to prescribing training Leads at 15 NHS Hospital Trusts. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis was performed on qualitative data. RESULTS: Trainers: 10 Prescribing Leads (67 %) responded. Of the 9 NHS Trusts that offered safe prescribing training in their induction programme, 5 included a practical prescribing session. By the end of the foundation year, 6 NHS Trusts had provided at least one dedicated practical prescribing session for F1s compared with 2 NHS Trusts for F2s. Trainees: A total of 124 foundation trainees (7.2 %) responded (69 F1s and 55 F2s). 87 % of F1s received dedicated training in safe prescribing at their Trust induction (n = 60) in comparison to 49 % of F2s (n = 27). 80 % of F1s (n = 55) had a practical prescribing session during induction versus 27 % of F2s (n = 15). The difference was significant, X (2) (1, N = 124) = 34.23, p <0.0001. Emerging themes from qualitative data included, recognition of medical education as a continuum, importance of working relationships with pharmacists and neglect of F2s. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be a lack of emphasis on the training of F2 doctors in practical safe prescribing compared with F1 doctors. There should be standardisation of safe prescribing training provisions, particularly in the induction period and for F2 doctors.